Fighter Revamp....

Felishanna@Antonia Bayle wrote:

I don't see any issue with someone rolling a fighter just to DPS. If you don't want to play with them for some reason, then don't. It simply doesn't affect you, so stop worrying about it. And recklessness is officially replacing your hybrid stance.
And some tanks ARE dps. Zerkers and SKs are REQUIRED to DPS, and DPS hard to hold aggro. We have no siphons or transfers at all period. It is the way the class was created, and truthfully we both sacrifice a lot of survivability for this offensive potential. Love the rage tho, keep it up.

BChizzle wrote:

"We're also changing how the Strikethrough mechanic interacts with tank classes. First, Crouching Tiger and Bodyguard will no longer grant full time immunity to Strikethrough. As the Brawler classes have gained active and passive tools to reduce spike damage, full time Strikethrough Immunity is no longer necessary. Furthermore, our content designers will be able to use Strikethrough to challenge groups regardless of which tank class they're using. For the second half of this change, Strikethrough Immunity has been added to all buffs that temporarily increase uncontested avoidance by 20% or more. This will make those temporary buffs more reliable and intuitive."

Gonna keep going?

Bruener wrote:

Ive been tanking in offensive for months now this is a buff since now I will be strikethrough immune in offensive.

Honestly it'll be better just to get rid of the stances altogether - they just either didn't do enough or were an unnessercary nerf; Recklessness as it sounds should have been how the offensive stance should have worked in the first place. effectively trading the tank's ability to survive for increased DPS when you were not needed to hold agro.
Perhaps ironically the brawler stances were already like this and they had 3 of them to choose from... plate tank stances were pretty much meaningless whichever stance you were in most times.
If I was in charge I'll just drop the offensive stance completly; add the stat boosts to the self buffs (e.g. +s/c/p +STR +proc) and then change the defensive stance to (+mitigation, +health - removing the negative drawbacks) and use the new reckless stance as the offensive stance.
The amount of times I've got in an argument over tanking in the offensive stance simply because it is called the offensive stance and not the defensive stance is crazy. Pretty much from RoK onwards I never considered using the defensive stance at all - and thus in many people's eyes I was "not a real tank".
The same will be true for the new recklessness stance - if it does not reduce the tank's ability to take damage it will simply be the new stance - but at the same time it needs to be strong enough so a tank can physcially take a hit before swapping to the "tank stance" should they need to in an emergancy.

Boli@Splitpaw wrote:

No!
That was exactly Aerilik's design that got shot down unilaterally last time.
Just cause you choose to do dps should not mean you can't build agro. Sure you should trade survivability for dps, that makes sense, but when you out-class content there should be no reason no to go into as little survivability as needed and still tank.
This idea of a stance that sets agro to 0 is a bad idea. Why don't other classes get the same stance? The answer is it would be game breaking for anyone else to have it, and that is sufficient reason for it not to exist for fighters as well.
I realize we've not seen the stance yet, but the entire thing smacks of exactly what we saw before.

Tekadeo wrote:

(( Sure, players can do whatever they like ... roll a tank to play DPS, roll a healer to tank, roll a mage to be a healer, whatever floats their personal boats. But you are right, I will avoid playing with the few people who are quite that stupid as a rule.
Back on planet "know-what-the classes-are-for", fighters are designed with the PRIMARY role of tanking in mind. Those fighters who think that maxing their parse is more important than staying alive or keeping aggro, and more important than their groups actually living through fights and their raids not wiping, are quite welcome to keep grouping with other people.
Unfortunately I do end up meeting them in PUGs when not playing my own tank from time to time. :/
"Love the rage tho, keep it up". Whatever that meant ))

Bruener wrote:

When we spoke I told you brawlers didnt need ST immunity anymore because we were at plate levels in mit. I also told you I didnt need to even use my defensive stance anymore and if my temps were reliable I could tank in offensive or mid easily and it was actually a benefit as I wouldnt get fiery feedbacked all over the place. I never said heals shouldnt scale and I agree a % base effect or just adjusting the amount the heals do is what will make it worthwhile.

The answer is yes brawlers can use their temps for strikethrough immunity in offensive now this is a buff, it will result in a bit more than 40 seconds of immunity to strikethrough per 1.5 minutes.
Again you think this is the solution to balance but it won't change anything, your class didn't get anything that will make them worth bringing to a raid, quite simply the most tricks to get through all the stupid one hit mechanics our lazy devs keep throwing at us will make that choice of tank what should be raiding and guess what nothing has changed about that.
The real problem here is the universal nerf to mit thats basically going to screw over everyone. More wards are going to be eaten on physical aes means less heals on the tank means bye bye tank on physical ae encounters.

Atan@Unrest wrote:

The cancelled fighter revamp was more due to the how taunting worked and gathering hate gain whilst actively reducing dps in the defensive stance.
I was more advocating that there is no need for EITHER an offensive or defensive stance (shove all the bonuses on the self buffs) but merely turning reckless on/off instead would count as going offensive or defensive.

Boli@Splitpaw wrote:

People like to make crap up about the old fighter revamp that never existed. You hit the head on the nail, the problem was that the old revamp went too far in turning tanking fighters into tauntbots and that was everyones issue with it because it was boring as hell to spam your taunts and not to be able to dps. It had nothing to stances agro or anything along those lines.

Everyone deserves to play how they want to play.

Beko@Antonia Bayle wrote:

When soloing...sure.

Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:

No, in any scenerio, everyone deserves to play how they want to play, this is why everquest had so many classes, to accomidate all types of playstyles.

Beko@Antonia Bayle wrote:

(( Literally, you are correct. Everyone can play (or at least try to play) exactly how they want, as long as it is within the EULA which they agree to every time they log into the game.
However, that does not change what the classes are actually DESIGNED to do, and for which they are best suited.
The Fighter classes (all six of them) are designed as their primary role to be tanks. Players rolling fighters to be primarily a pure DPS class are not doing themselves any favours. You know this as well as I do, or you should. They are going to really struggle to find groups and raids to accept them.
I'm surprised there is anyone arguing otherwise ))

Felishanna@Antonia Bayle wrote:

I havent seen one person arguing otherwise. No one is rolling a fighter simply to DPS. The primary role is the same. To put it simply, Reckless is ONLY to be used when that primary role is not needed.
I'm surprised you derived any of that from what any person is posting here....but that's not to say people won't do this in the future. But if they do, so be it. Don't like it? Don't play with them, doesn't affect you one stinkin bit.

Tekadeo wrote:

(( Really, Takadeo? And yet earlier in this thread....
Tekadeo wrote:

Next.... ))

Felishanna@Antonia Bayle wrote:

Learn to read^^ I'll copy and paste it for you though:
...that's not to say people won't do this in the future. But if they do, so be it. Don't like it? Don't play with them, doesn't affect you one stinkin bit."
What's your argument here, then? Oh you don't have one, you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. Cool.

Kimber@Nagafen wrote:

I have no idea what class you are currently playing as a fighter but I am putting out anywhere from 180k to 300k depending on buffs in group on raids and thats without recklessness and as a Guardian.

Dominiscious wrote:

Yeap, right where I am unless you count some silly parses on those heroic ae fights
At the same time, our T1 DPS is pushing 600k-1M depending on encounter.
I think I can push my guard to 500k in reckless with the right group placement, maybe a little bit more, but why in the world would you bring me in reckless in any group over putting a BL there instead?
I will continue to log an alt if I'm not needed to tank, I don't plan to use this stance other than to make some epreen parse posts for prosterity.
I question how many of you don't have viable alts when the raid is full of tanks? As old as this game is, and as easy and fast as having a viable alt is, is this stance really needed?

Atan@Unrest wrote:

I say no. This stance isn't needed for the reason as your statement suggests. All this stance will do is take outdated fighter offensive stances and make them even more of a waste.
If anything what I think the devs should have done is make each fighters offensive stance something unique to each fighter in question. No one fighter offensive stance being the same as the other fighters like reckless stance is now. Make it something that really benefits each fighter individually and that the offensive stance has some good damage potential for those that choose to use it.

Atan@Unrest wrote:

I have exactly 2 toons....a Guardian and a Assassin and I am in the extreme minority in having so few. This stance is NOT needed in the slightest.